I've got the Mormon wedding blues

Interesting thread. I never knew much about Mormons, though I’ve been in an analogous situation to the OP: my brother converted to Mormonism and married a Mormon woman. (I don’t know whether it was a sealing or the other type, I didn’t know enough to know there was more than one type.)

Anyway, none of our family attending the wedding – we weren’t invited to any part of the festivities – so the snubbing could be much worse. :wink:

The question that was raised, about why some non-Mormons could find being excluded from the ceremony offensive – it’s the one-sided nature of it, I think. So far as I know, all the other denominations of christians are happy to welcome anyone to their churches as visitors – whether of different christian denominations, believers of completely different religions, non-believers, whatever. Come to our services, come to our ceremonies, come to our Fellowship activities – all are welcome.

When you have grown up with that as your tradition, having the door of a church barred to you can be seen as a slap in the face.
Now I’ve just remembered something from my childhood, that was a similar situation. My family is protestant (evangelical Lutheran, if that matters) and when I was around 12 we moved to a house two door down from the Rabbi of a conservative synagogue. He and his wife invited our family to dinner soon after we moved in, and we had a pleasant meal. Then my parents invited their family to dinner the next week – and the Rabbi explained that he and his family could never come eat in our house. We didn’t keep a kosher house, our food was unclean, and as a Rabbi he couldn’t possibly eat each such food, but they hoped we’d come to eat with them often.

Instant and never-to-be-thawed freeze between our families.

The Rabbi wasn’t trying to be offensive, the reverse I’m sure, but there really isn’t any getting around it. Neighborliness is based on reciprocity, as seeing each other as equals. To my parents the other family had turned from potential friends to people who thought we weren’t ‘good enough’ to be true friends with but who they would be willing to feed out of charity.

Hadn’t thought about that in years.

Could it be similiar to non-Catholics taking offense in not being able to partake in our Eucharist?

I live in Utah. There is an LDS church every 100 yards, or at least it seems that way. Every single one of them have the words “VISITORS WELCOME” formed in steel and attached to the front of the building.

Entering the temple is different. Being allowed to enter a Mormon temple is reserved only for those who have proven themselves temple worthy. It is considered sacred and holy ground. Those who enter must wear special white clothing and speak in hushed tones.

Again, not all members of the LDS church are deemed worthy.

As I have already mentioned, I do not believe in the teaching of the LDS church, but holy shit, I get the impression that some of you would believe the church members have three arms and walk backwards if someone told you it was so. They are regular, normal people like you and I. I promise.

It’s refreshing to see atleast one person think that way.:slight_smile:

I’d compare it to this: a family member is injured and requires surgery, and the entire clan flies cross-country to support him – very loving family stuff. when they arrive, they discover that the surgery is still pending. Would the family get pissed off because they’re not allowed in the surgical suite?

I’m not a Mormon, and I don’t have any contact with any who are active, but I imagine that’s exactly how they feel about the Temple, and about the sealing; not that it’s going to get contaminated (well, maybe that too), but that only those who need to be there, who have prepared properly (“scrubbed”, in the surgery), and who are authorized to be there, have any business being there.

RTFirefly, I also got the impression from your post that you drew a contrast between Mormons and Christians, rather than between Mormons and otherChristians. I am aware that many Christian denominations regard the CJCLDS as heretical, but even heretical Christians are still Christians.

Ya know, non Muslims aren’t allowed into Meca either.

If a person has a deep, burning need to go into the temple, they could always convert to Mormonism. In lieu of that, perhaps they could be happy with the portion of the cerimony/celebration that they are being welcomed to with open arms.

emarkp: I think I was referring to the folks who demanded the church take some action to prove they’re no longer members of our church. Thanks for pointing out (although you didn’t exactly say it) the ellipsis in my earlier posting.

I don’t think so. If non-Catholic Christians take offense at closed communion, it’s far more likely to be on doctrinal (i.e. “there is no Biblical justification for any believer in Christ to be prohibited from sharing in the Lord’s Supper”) grounds.

In this instance, I don’t think that the trouble is nearly so much that Mormon doctrine excludes so many from the actual ceremony, it’s the tacit message – intentional or not – that those who aren’t permitted to be at the ceremony itself are only ‘good enough’ to go to great expense and trouble to come to a backyard barbecue. I’m sure that this is not intentional and not what Nichol’s cousin (?) is attempting to convey but it is certainly a message which could be taken from this situation, and it’s a message which would be, obviously, extraordinarily hurtful.

There is a point at which there is a separation. Christianity is not merely a denomination of Judaism, despite the fact that all of Jewish Scripture is also Christian Scripture. It is a separate religion.

I would argue that the analogy holds for Christianity and the LDS. But this is not the place to do it.

tlw, have you read anything that has been written in this thread of have I and others just basically wasted our breaths?

Who ever said you were normal, Diane? :smiley:

You know, it’s times like this that I’m glad I’m on the East Coast, instead of a mere 10 hour drive from SLC.

Ummmmmmm, look who’s talking, Mrs. WeirdDave. :stuck_out_tongue:

tlw: Do you realize that you just (a) explained away one denomination’s stance on doctrine and (b) made a 180 on another denomation’s stance on doctrine?

Go ahead and start a thread, RT. May I suggest entitling it RTF Issues the One and the Only and the Correct List of Those Who are Actually Christians and an Accompanying List of Thosw Who Claim to be Christians but Are Not?

Extreme sarcasm intended there.

The converse is (IMO) more disturbing: if you spend lots of money, you should be able to do anything you want, etc.

Actually, RTF; all sarcasm aside, it really is silly to say “Yes, we are” on one side and “No, you aren’t” on the other side. I think what matters is the how the people concerned identify themselves. Both sides of the issue are being exclusionary as far as that goes.

But, if you do decide to open a thread on it, please give it a snappier & funnier title than the lame one I suggested.

I think it just rubs people the wrong way, because in other faiths (and in our culture in general), weddings are meant to be shared. They are gatherings of entire families and groups of friends who set all other concerns aside at that time and focus good will on the couple who are sharing vows before them.
To have a “Members Only” wedding, where the vows are concealed from the rest of the families of which the bride and groom are a part, is counterintuitve.

Tough Cookies, it’s their wedding. What if one couple viewed their wedding night as not being sacred, and critisized you for wanting it behind closed doors? Temple marriages are very sacred experiences for the bride and groom. They don’t want the world to be there, and they usually have a ring ceremony or reception to make up for it. I think someone else mentioned it, but wouldn’t you rather just go to the dancing and food rather than sit through the ceremony?

I’ve been reading this thread and have resisted the temptation to toss in my .02 cents until now. There have been times I’ve wanted to weigh in on one issue or another as it came up, but decided not to. Now, I’ve decided to toss in another point of view. Not a rant; not a rave. Just a different way of viewing the OP (which from what I have read has already been acknowledged was a misunderstanding that’s been cleared up).

One of my nephew’s is a member of a religion where women are not permitted to attend the marriage ceremony with the exception of the bride. That means her mother nor could my sister be there, much less me.

Then there is the side of my family I’m not very close to. I didn’t know my sister had remarried for a long time. I didn’t know my niece or either one of my nephews had even married much less have children until long after the fact. I’m sure you can see where this is going. I wasn’t invited to any weddings or even part of sending baby gifts.

Then there is the side of my family that I am close to. My sister remarried about 8 months before I knew about it. I thought she was still living with him. The one nephew and niece also got married without me knowing about it. The other nephew I was invited to his first marriage, but didn’t know he had remarried until it was well past.

I could feel put out by not being included in these events, but what good would it do for me to harbor hard feelings about it? Would it change anything? Would it bring us any closer?

Yes, initially, I felt hurt I wasn’t invited or at least told about the events. But after thinking about them seriously, I came to the conclusion that the events were for the two individuals being married. In all cases, my sisters, nephews and nieces eloped. I was close enough in a couple of cases I could have met them there, but they chose to not share the event with anyone else.

It’s a sensitive situation that families put a lot of pressure on the couple. Sometimes it’s big events when the couples really just want a small ceremony, or some other pressure put on them by well meaning relatives.

But it boils down to it’s up to the two people getting married to decide what type of ceremony they want and who they want present.

If you want to jump on one more thing to snub the LDS church for, go ahead. But none of my relatives that I just referenced are LDS and they choose to have no guests or to not include me in the guest list.

It’s really unfair to blame it on any church belief system. If you want to be pissed at someone, place your anger where it belongs… on the couple who is getting married.

But ask yourself is it worth the price it will cost you? What do you really want? For them to be happy? For them to change their plans to include you? To punish them for making a choice you disagree with? To maintain a good relationship with them?

I’ll leave the rest of the questions that come to my mind unsaid so that you can ask your own questions and come to your own conclusions what consequences your behavior will have.

And I’m not directing this to just the OP. I’m posing this idea to anyone who faces something like this.

The couple who are getting married aren’t to blame in any way, shape, or form. Someone mentioned earlier that the marriage united two families. Nice theory except for one thing–it’s not true. The only people involved in the actual marriage partnership itself are the bride and the groom and therefore it’s their marriage. The only people who are to blame for being upset at the couple are those who are upset at someone else’s choice. Look at the threads in the Pit where someone is ranting, justifiably, about some other family member nagging them into having children or how to raise the couple’s children.

Obviously, I have LDS friends, being LDS myself. Those friends know I can’t enter the Temple yet; however, they include me in their celebration by sending me an invitation to the ring ceremony and reception. Even if I were eligible, there’s just not room for all that stuff that goes along with other traditions of marriage. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the Sealing Room is not exactly a gigantic wedding hall. One of the best friends I’ve ever had in my life knew that it was literally impossible for me to attend even that portion of his marriage celebration because I was on a six-month deployment. Yet, I still got an invite and I was very happy to get it. It showed me that my friend and his new bride remembered me even though I was floating out in the middle of nowhere.

The OP’s aunt is upset at someone else’s choice. She should be happy that she’s included (being remembered) in any part of it. I’m sure we all know at least one person who isn’t on the best of terms with a family member or two. Again, as someone else mentioned earlier, the “snubbing” could’ve been worse, even though a Temple Sealing is not a snubbing.

This part of cadolphin’s posting above is spot-on:

Having guests or not having guests doesn’t make the ceremony any less of a marriage. And it certainly doesn’t make it any less the choice of the couple getting married, who are presumably adults. Cut the cord and let them be adults!